RELOCATION GRANTS: AMOUNT (Hansard, 8 July 1996)

§ Mr. Chris Davies
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 77, line 11, after 'dwelling', insert 'and making any improvement, having regard to the size of the applicant's household, including any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 139, in page 77, line 11, after 'dwelling', insert 'and making any improvement or undertaking any work that may be reasonably required, having regard to the size of the applicant's household, including any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him.'. Government amendments Nos. 115 and 116.
Amendment No. 10, in page 77, line 34, at end insert— ' "improvement" includes alteration and enlargement;'.

§ Mr. Davies
The amendment aims to widen the scope of the useful relocation grants so that consideration may be given not only to the purchase price of property but to its improvement, and particularly to its enlargement, in particular circumstances.
I shall illustrate that for the House by referring to the hypothetical case of a northern city in which there is a clearance area that consists largely of older terraced homes, which perhaps suffer from subsidence, which are occupied mainly by Asian householders whose families are larger than average. Those families wish to stay in the area, but the properties surrounding the clearance area are not big enough to accommodate their needs.
Local authorities face real difficulties in such circumstances as they may not be able to find alternative housing for residents. The result may be that a few families remain in a clearance area for longer than might be expected, living virtually alone in an otherwise derelict street. That is not good for the local authority, whose clearance programme is delayed, and it is not good for the families affected.
I raised the matter with the Minister in Committee with a similarly worded amendment. At the time, the Minister said that repair grants provided an alternative that might meet the target. However, in practice, given the limitations on the budgets allocated to them and the size of the grant that may be allocated, repair grants could not meet the costs involved with enlarging a terraced property or some other large property around the clearance area so as to accommodate the needs of a large family.
I believe that the amendment is a useful extension to a generally welcome principle. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter since we discussed it in Committee and that he will look upon it favourably.

§ Mr. Clappison
We turn now to the subject of relocation grants. They are a new form of grant which are widely welcome and which will assist many people whose homes have been cleared. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth has rehearsed some of my arguments. As he said, we discussed the matter fairly fully in Committee. We said then why such amendments were unnecessary and undesirable.
113 It is undesirable to confuse the purpose of relocation grants by extending them to cover work such as improvements, alteration and enlargement, which are quite different. We propose to prescribe in regulations that dwellings qualifying for relocation grants should be of suitable size, type and condition to meet the reasonable needs of the grant applicant and that authorities should decide such questions. To the extent that an authority is sympathetic to the idea of someone buying a property that needs works of improvement and so forth to make it suitable, the proper recourse, having regard to the available resources and the authority's priorities, would be, as the hon. Gentleman anticipated, for it to consider giving an appropriate renovation grant. It would need to consider whether the works warranted one and, if so, it would need to be able to give people a commitment in principle to giving them an appropriate renovation grant soon after purchase. The authority would also need to exercise its discretion under clause 10(3) to waive the three-year qualifying period for renovation grants.
On amendments Nos. 115 and 116, although we do not support the amendments to paragraph (a) of clause 133(5), we have noticed a problem with the wording of paragraph (b) which we wish to correct to ensure that grant is not paid to acquire an unnecessarily expensive property. Our intention was to base the cost of acquisition on the lower of the actual cost or the amount that the local authority considered to be the reasonable cost of acquiring a comparable property in the same area. As currently worded, however, the provision refers to the cost of acquiring a property of the same sort, which might be interpreted rather narrowly. Amendment No. 113 corrects that and will ensure that all the factors that affect market value, such as age, condition, size and character, are taken into account in determining the reasonable cost.
Finally, amendment No. 160 enables the regulations governing the means test for relocation grants to make provision for authorities to check the information provided by grant applicants by requiring information or evidence from prescribed persons. This is to bring the powers into line with those for renovation grants in clause 30. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Davies
I am sorry that the Minister has not used the time since Committee to come to a different view. I remain unconvinced by his arguments. My case has merits and I suspect that it will be taken up by the local government associations in their discussions with the Department of the Environment in the months and years to come. These useful relocation grants may be adapted by one of his successors to accommodate my points. Until then, and in that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.